https://www.hydroviv.com/blogs/water-smarts.atomHydroviv - Water Quality Information | Written By Actual Experts2018-12-11T11:18:00-05:00Hydrovivhttps://www.hydroviv.com/blogs/water-smarts/wotus2018-12-11T11:18:00-05:002018-12-11T16:26:20-05:00Breaking: How Changes To The Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) Rule Affects Drinking WaterAnalies Dyjak

Analies Dyjak & Eric Roy, Ph.D.

Editor's Note: Today, the US EPA and US Army Corps Of Engineers announced that they repealed the Clean Water Rule, and redefined which waters are regulated by the federal government under the Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) Rule. The purpose of this article is to inform the public how this regulatory change can impact their drinking water. We will be updating this article continuously as we learn more and to answer frequently asked questions.

What Is WOTUS?

Waters Of The United States (WOTUS) defines which bodies of water the Federal Government can regulate under the Clean Water Rule. In 2015 the Obama Administration worked to establish a definition for which waters can be regulated waters with the intent of protecting drinking water, ecosystems, wetlands, and endangered species. Most importantly for drinking water, WOTUS provided coverage to groundwater, as roughly 50% of the US population drinks groundwater, including the 15% of people who draw drinking water from private wells. The new WOTUS definition basically removes these protections, among other things.

How Will The New WOTUS Definition Impact Drinking Water?

In the press conference, EPA officials mentioned that the new change does not change the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This is intentionally misleading because private wells are NOT protected by the SDWA, and by removing federal protection from groundwater in general, the Trump administration is removing the only protection for people who have private wells, so those people really should be regularly testing their water quality, which is a giant financial burden to the citizen.

What Is Considered A Water Of The United States Under The Proposed Rule?

Traditional navigable waters

Tributaries

Navigable ditches

Lakes

Impoundments

Wetlands

What Is NOT Considered A Water Of The United States Under The Proposed Rule?

Groundwater

Water features

Farm ditches

Converted cropland

Who Drove The Legislation To Roll Back These Protections?

A coalition of lobbyists from various business organizations, led by the American Farm Bureau was responsible for driving this legislation. In fact, the American Farm Bureau had representatives from western agricultural states in the press conference audience.

What Can Citizens Do To Be Heard On The Topic?

As with any proposed rule, there is a public comment period. Our experts will be submitting public comments to the Federal Register. Once the link is live, we'll be posting it here.

]]>
https://www.hydroviv.com/blogs/water-smarts/chemours-to-pay-13-million-to-the-north-carolina-department-of-environmental-quality-for-years-of-pfas-pollution2018-12-05T12:52:00-05:002018-12-05T13:19:28-05:00Chemours To Pay $13 Million To The North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality For Years Of PFAS PollutionAnalies Dyjak

Analies Dyjak | Policy Nerd

Our Water Nerds have been closely following the environmental and public health disaster in North Carolina for a while now. This article provides an overview of the recent consent order, and some background information on what's going on in North Carolina.

The Chemours Plant in Fayetteville, North Carolina has been discharging various per and polyfluoroalkyl substances (also known as PFAS) for decades. PFAS are a category of emerging contaminants that are found in some of the most popular consumer products such as Scotchgard, Gore-Tex, Teflon, and other stain/water resistant products. PFAS is also an important ingredient in firefighting foam, which has been a major source of water contamination throughout the country. In recent years, a replacement chemical for PFOA called GenX has dominated the conversation, particularly in North Carolina. In November 2018, EPA admitted that GenX is “suggestive” of cancer, which is significant for residents who have been unknowingly exposed.

$13 Million Awarded to NCDEQ

Chemours is awarding $13 million to the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality in the form of civil penalties and investigative costs. In comparison to other PFAS-related settlements, this is by far one of the smallest. In early 2018, 3M paid the state of Minnesota $850 Million in environmental degradation. In 2017, DuPont was involved in a $670.7 million settlement in the Mid-Ohio Valley region for PFAS pollution.

Overview Of The Consent Order

The Consent Order clearly lays out a timeline of air emission goals and wastewater discharge stipulations. Chemours’ National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit was revoked in early 2017 and the new Consent Order prohibits any sort of wastewater discharge until a NPDES permit is reallocated. Chemours must also create laboratory methods and test standards for all PFAS compounds released by the Fayetteville plant. Basic remediation plans must be agreed upon by the North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality, North Carolina River Keepers, and Chemours. Chemours will also pay for water filtration for water filtration for residents on private wells. Concentrations of GenX must be above 140 parts per trillion or any updated health advisory, in order to be eligible for a filter. GenX is not the only PFAS compound detected in the Cape Fear area, and the consent order addresses that. the Residents can also be eligible for filtration if other PFAS compounds are detected in well water over 10 parts per trillion individually, and 70 parts per trillion combined. NCDEQ is currently seeking public comment regarding the recent settlement.

How Are Cape Fear Residents Responding?

Cape Fear Public Utility Authority (CFPUA) created a comprehensive breakdown of the Chemours consent order. The utility provider acknowledged that the settlement did not go far enough to cover the scope of GenX and PFAS pollution in the Cape Fear area. In a press release, CFPUA talked about how the consent order did not acknowledge the PFAS sediment pollution at the bottom of the Cape Fear River. Any sort of dredge or fill could disturb the sediment and create GenX concentrations to sky rocket in drinking water. Local non-profit groups are also not in agreement with the Chemours settlement because they believe it does not go far enough to mitigate the scope of contamination. The current consent order places most of the mitigative costs water utility providers which would of course be paid for by taxpayers.

Our Take:

In early November of 2018, EPA released a draft toxicity report for GenX, proposing a threshold of 80 parts per trillion for drinking water. The concentration deemed “safe” by North Carolina and Chemours is almost two times higher than what the EPA is proposing as safe. Health and regulatory agencies know very little about the adverse health effects of GenX and other PFAS compounds. It’s up to consumers to decide the best course of action to protect themselves and their families.

Our inbox has been inundated with questions regarding the NRDC drinking water report that CNN retreated yesterday. We wanted to add some context and remind readers that these developments are not new. The scope of the drinking water problem in this country is much broader than the 90 federally regulated contaminants highlighted in the report.

With myriad water quality crises popping up all over the country this past year, the topic of drinking water quality has once again commanded national media attention. CNN recently published an article underlining a 2017 report by the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Major Takeaways:

It’s not easy to violate a drinking water standard. In fact, drinking water regulations are set so high in the United States that it’s surprisingly difficult for a municipality to surpass a federal threshold. The consensus in the scientific and toxicological community is that federal standards should be reduced across the board.

Why is the conversation being limited to regulated contaminants? For a bit of perspective, EPA regulates 90 drinking water contaminants that municipalities must comply with. These regulated contaminants include lead, arsenic, disinfection byproducts, and others. There are thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of potentially dangerous unregulated contaminants. Despite this growing problem, the CNN report focused entirely on the 90 federally regulated contaminants, which doesn't even scratch the surface of America's drinking water crisis.

The article is vague about what constitutes a "violation." Municipalities can receive a violation from the state, or primacy agency for different reasons. Municipalities can be in violation if they are "out of compliance" or "in exceedance" of a drinking water standard. However, municipalities that fail to report data or test for a contaminant may also receive a violation. There's very little enforcement or repercussions imposed on municipalities that have violations, and often community members are left in the dark.

How Can We Determine The Actual Scope of Drinking Water Contamination In The United States?

Figuring out the scope of this problem is extremely difficult, due to the slow-moving regulatory process and missing data. EPA estimates it would cost $743 billion to mitigate only the regulated contaminants in the U.S., meaning it would do nothing to address unregulated contaminants like Chromium 6, PFAS, and 1,4-Dioxane. Communities like Madison, Wisconsin could theoretically receive a gold star when looking at their compliance for regulated contaminants. Madison has low levels or lead, disinfection byproducts, and arsenic - all well within EPA standards. People are often surprised to find out that Madison has screamingly high levels of Chromium 6, which is also known as the "Erin Brockovich" chemical (the movie came out almost 20 years ago, and the contaminant is still unregulated). According to the most recent report, the average concentration of Chromium 6 in Madison is 1400 parts per trillion. This is 70 times higher than the concentration determined to have a negligible impact on cancer risk.

America’s drinking water is more widespread than you think, and the scope of the problem goes well beyond the 90 contaminants addressed in the article. We must look beyond annual Consumer Confidence Reports to unveil the truth about our water.

Our blog has been following PFAS contaminants such as GenX for months now, often reporting on new developments before mainstream news. Today marks an important milestone: EPA has released a draft toxicity profile for GenX. This long-awaited toxicity report contains critical information for many states who have been seeking answers on this harmful contaminant.

EPA’s Draft Toxicity Assessments for GenX and PFBS:

EPA determined a candidate Chronic Reference Dose of 0.00008 mg/kg-day, or 80 parts per trillion. A reference dose is the daily oral intake not anticipated to cause negative health effects over a lifetime. A reference dose is not a carcinogenic risk factor, however, EPA states that the toxicity data for GenX are “suggestive of cancer.” According to the draft report, oral exposure in animals had negative health effects on the kidney, blood, immune system, developing fetus, and liver. The draft toxicity report also provided information on PFBS, which is a replacement chemical for PFOS. The candidate Chronic Reference Dose for PFBS is 0.01 mg/kg-day, and there was insufficient data to determine its carcinogenic potential.

What Is GenX?

GenX is part of a category of contaminants called PFAS, or per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. GenX has gained national attention since being discovered in the Cape Fear River in June of 2017. PFAS have historically been used in consumer products like Scotchgard, Gore-Tex, Teflon, and even the inside of popcorn bags. PFAS are also used in firefighting foam, which is the major source of its pollution in waterways across the country.

Background:

The Chemours plant in Fayetteville, North Carolina produces refrigerants, ion exchange membranes, and other fluoroproducts. They have been discharging liquid effluent into the Cape Fear River for years, which has contaminated drinking water for the entire area. GenX is the replacement chemical for PFOA. After PFOA was discovered to be toxic, manufacturers addressed the issue by making an equally-as toxic replacement. Manufacturers of PFAS have been doing this for years, which is why there are so many different variations present in the environment.

Is GenX Federally Regulated By EPA?

No. This means that municipalities are not required to test for GenX or PFBS. Additionally, this draft toxicity level is not a lifetime health advisory level, which states would be more inclined to follow.

When Will A Drinking Water Standard Be Determined?

Don’t hold your breath on anytime soon! The regulatory process can take decades, especially for such a persistent contaminant in the environment. This is more than enough time for adverse health effects to set in, and we recommend consumers do everything they can to learn about their water and protect themselves, rather than wait for the government to step in.

What Does This Mean For Me?

EPA is in the very early stages of determining a regulation or even health advisory for GenX. This draft toxicity level needs to go through public comment so that states, tribes, and municipalities can offer input and recommendations. If you want to see third-party data on filters that remove GenX and other PFAS, click HERE.

Lead concentrations in Newark's drinking water have been in exceedance of the Federal Action Level since 2015. The largest city in New Jersey has struggled to keep lead concentrations under the 15 part per billion threshold ever since the standard was set in 1991. Recent sampling has detected staggering concentrations of lead in Newark's drinking water, ranging anywhere from 58 to 137 parts per billion. You may be wondering why Newark's water crisis has not been thrust into the national spotlight. While Flint, Michigan captured the nation’s attention, the lead crisis in Newark remains largely underreported.

Lead: Newark, New Jersey

It's no secret that older municipalities have problems with lead contamination in drinking water. This is in part due to an aging infrastructure, and Newark, New Jersey is no exception. The city of Newark supplies 80 million gallons of water per day to over 300,000 customers. The Pequannock Water Treatment Plant treats water from the Charlotteburg Reservoir and supplies water to Newark’s North, West, South, and Central Wards. The Wanaque Water Treatment Plant is operated by the North Jersey District Water Supply Commission, which supplies water to the East Ward and part of the North and Central Wards.

Misinformation

Newark residents have repeatedly been ensured that their water is “safe to drink.” On page one of the most recent Consumer Confidence Report (CCR), the city’s mayor claimed that “the quality of our water meets all federal and state standards.” False. He continued to say that only “one or two” homes were in exceedance of the federal Action Level. Also false. The truth is that between January and June of 2017, 16 sites were in exceedance of the action level and from July to December 2017, 11 sites were in exceedance of the action level. Mayor Baraka defended his claims by saying that the source water is safe to drink. It's well understood that lead contamination occurs when water comes in contact with residential lead service lines, rather than when it leaves a treatment facility. The problem is most people stop reading once their city officials tell them their water doesn’t contain lead. In a perfect world, when a city official says something is "safe" you should trust and believe them.

What Is A Safe Level Of Lead?

The American Academy of Pediatrics acknowledges that there is no safe level of lead for children. Again, a safe threshold does not exist. Childhood lead exposure can cause serious developmental problems that can manifest later in life. Adults may experience neurological and gastrointestinal effects, as well as an increased risk of miscarriages and stillbirths when exposed to high concentrations of lead. EPA set an Action Level of 15 parts per billion, but toxicologists agree that this federal threshold is far too high.

Current Treatment Techniques in Newark, NJ

The chemistry of the water entering the Pequannock treatment facility is very different than the water entering the Wanaque treatment facility. Because of this, both facilities have their own unique treatment plans. The two distribution systems use different corrosion control technologies for reducing lead:

Pequannock: sodium silicate dose of 12-15 mg/L (goal of 6 mg/L)

Wanque: 1.2 mg/L of orthophosphate

**Orthophosphate is a common corrosion inhibitor. It forms a mineral-like crust on the inside of lead service pipes. In some cases, sodium silicate can decrease lead concentrations by increasing the pH of the water. When sodium silicate was initially added to Newark water, it was believed to effectively prevent corrosion. Research has since found that sodium silicate isn’t always effective.**

Newark’s History of Lead Contamination

Elevated Lead Concentrations From Pequannock Water Treatment Plant Data (1992-2018)

Questionable Sample Techniques:

As recent as September 10, 2018, Newark did not follow EPA sampling guidelines in accordance with the Lead and Copper Rule. Sampling occurred after a 6 to 12 hour stagnation period, which is compliant. Faucets were then flushed for 10 minutes before a 500 mL sample was collected. Under 40 CFR 141.86 (b), the proper sampling technique is to take a 1 liter “first-draw” sample. Even so, first-draw samples aren’t always an accurate indication of lead in drinking water.

Failure of Orthophosphate As A Corrosion Inhibitor

This is not the first time Orthophosphate has failed as a corrosion inhibitor. Madison, Wisconsin gave Orthophosphate a shot in hopes of reducing city-wide lead levels. Madison city officials stated that Orthophosphate didn’t work, causing the city to adopt an expensive full lead service line replacement program. Phosphates are known to pollute waterways by causing algae blooms, which is why the Pequannock Plant is unable to add it upstream of Cedar Grove.

Environmental Justice

46% of the population in Newark speak a non-English language (a CCR in multiple languages is not available on the city’s website). The fundamental purpose of a disclosure is to communicate information. If people are unable to understand the information, then it isn't disclosure. This is further extrapolated when citizens are led to believe a false narrative.

Major Takeaways

City officials failed to adjust corrosion control techniques after current methods were found to be ineffective

Because of the effects on waterways, Pequannock is unable to add orthophosphate to incoming source water

The Lead and Copper Rule doesn’t hold municipalities accountable for lead infractions, nor does it allow for direct and immediate action

Sodium Silicate has been adjusting the pH without preventing corrosion for decades

Newark residents were continuously told that they didn't have a lead problem

Our Thoughts:

Addressing lead contamination at a system-wide level is not easy. We’ve seen this in Flint, Pittsburgh, Washington D.C., and Portland, Oregon (who won’t even admit that they have a lead problem). Simply put, 100 samples for a city of 300,000 is not enough, and 24 is unacceptable. Newark needs to work towards a greater level of transparency and accountability, but until then, consumers must protect themselves.

There’s no denying that fracking has changed the course of energy production in the U.S., but not without some serious environmental impacts. Fracking severely threatens groundwater aquifers that millions of Americans depend on for drinking water. The viral videos of people lighting their tap water on fire are real, and the risk to human health is significant. Here’s how fracking can affect drinking water.

How Does Fracking Pollute Drinking Water?

Fracking liquids can easily migrate to surrounding groundwater aquifers, either in the well injection stage or after they're transported offsite. A 2015 report by the California Office of Emergency Services concluded that 18% of fracking spills impact waterways. To give that statistic some real-world context, in North Dakota, 2,963,000 gallons of hydraulic fracturing liquid ended up polluting groundwater as a result of just 18 spills in 2015. 43 million people draw their drinking water from private wells, and are the most susceptible to pollution from fracking.

Fracking is an extremely water-intensive process. The amount of water required ranges anywhere from 1.5 to 16 million gallons per injection well. Natural gas producers then have to decide what to do with such high volumes of polluted water. Once the “produced liquid” has been used for extraction, it’s either; injected into a Class II well, reused in other hydraulic fracturing projects, or transported to a waste site.

Who Creates Setback Distances?

States have primacy over determining setback distances.

Colorado: Proposition 112

Some states recognize the serious and immediate threat that fracking has on drinking water. In Colorado, a question on the 2018 ballot addresses just that. Current state regulations require natural gas wells to be 500 feet from a home and 1000 feet from a “highly occupied structure” (school or apartment complex). Prop 112 would increase the setback distance to 2500 feet, or approximately a half mile. Health organizations argue that the proposed setback distance in Colorado still doesn’t go far enough, but is a step in the right direction.

Chemicals in Fracking Liquid

Fracking liquids are proprietary, meaning companies create their own unique chemical cocktails. Because fracking is exempt from the Clean Water Act, natural gas companies are not required to disclose what exactly they’re pumping into the earth. Between the years of 2005 and 2013, EPA was able to identify 1,084 different hydraulic fracturing chemicals. EPA concluded that 65% of the wells tested had methanol, hydrotreated light petroleum distillates and hydrochloric acid. Other popular fracking chemicals include arsenic, benzene, cadmium, lead, formaldehyde, chlorine, and mercury-- a great medley of both toxic carcinogenic compounds.

Health Effects

Common health effects of Hydrochloric Acid, one of the prominent fracking chemicals, include inflammation and ulceration of the respiratory tract, pulmonary edema, lesions of the upper respiratory tract, and corrosion of mucous membranes of the esophagus and stomach. Fetuses and young children are the most susceptible to the adverse health effects associated with fracking chemicals. A 2017 study concluded that in Pennsylvania, babies of moms who live within one kilometer (3280 feet) of a fracking site have a 25% greater chance of being born underweight, than expecting mothers that live 3 kilometers (9842 feet) away.

What Is The Halliburton Loophole?

In 2005, congress passed the Energy Policy Act, which exempted fracking from the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act. This soon became known as the “Halliburton Loophole” for the extensive lobbying done by Halliburton Oilfield Service. Through this loophole, natural gas companies are not required to disclose extraction chemicals or other important water-related information. Natural gas companies are also not required to obtain National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits. This eliminates pollution permits for; natural gas exploration, production, processing, treatment, transmission, and related activities.

Bottom Line:

While fracking provides American-produced energy, it also seriously threatens drinking water. And fracking isn’t going anywhere any time soon. Natural gas production is predicted to grow 40% in the next 20 years. This means more injection wells and more pollution. It’s up to industries and consumers to weigh the benefits with the costs of fracking.

As hurricane season is coming to an end, we wanted to let you know how heavy rains can impact drinking water. Here’s how stormwater runoff can affect your water.

How Does Stormwater Affect Drinking Water?

Heavy rain storms create a rapid influx of water, which can cause a host of health and environmental issues. Rainwater travels to low-lying bodies of water, including oceans, lakes, rivers, streams, and aquifers. Both surface and groundwater are susceptible to contamination from stormwater runoff, both of which are sources of drinking water. As water travels, it picks up loose debris, pesticides, herbicides, oil, and other types of pollution in its path. This cocktail of contaminants is then dumped into a nearby waterway. Some municipal water treatment facilities are equipped to deal with these types of contamination, while others are not. 86% of the U.S. population gets their drinking water from surface water sources, so maintaining clean lakes and rivers is extremely important.

What Are Combined Sewer Overflows or CSO’s?

Combined Sewer Overflows or CSO’s, are a system of underground canals that collect stormwater runoff, industrial wastewater, and sewage all in the same pipe. Under normal conditions, stormwater and sewage travels to a wastewater plant where it’s treated before being discharged into a body of water. During heavy rain events, the large influx of stormwater causes pipes to exceed the capacity of the the system. Untreated wastewater, including sewage, overflows into nearby oceans, lakes, rivers or streams or wherever a stormwater discharge output exists. CSO’s were used as early as the 1850’s, and were the only system in place to deal with such high volumes of water. Many cities have replaced CSO’s with advanced infrastructure, but cities such as Portland, Maine and Cambridge, Massachusetts still use them.

Impervious Surfaces and Stormwater

Impervious surfaces are developed areas where water is unable to infiltrate into the earth. This typically refers to paved roads, roofs, and sidewalks. When water is unable to infiltrate, it flows into the nearest body of water or wastewater system. Impervious surfaces are of concern because water picks up and carries dangerous contaminants, then deposits them into drinking water sources. Impervious surfaces also increase the impacts from floods. Unable to percolare, water sits on top of paved roads, increasing the flood potential and presence of biological contamination. As communities continue to develop, the area of paved or impervious surface increases as well.

Wetlands: Important for Stormwater Retention

Wetlands offer remarkable protection from the impacts of flooding and other stormwater damages. Wetlands absorb incoming water and release it slowly, acting as a natural sponge. According to the U.S Army Corps of Engineers, the state wetland conservation along the Charles River in Boston, Massachusetts saved approximately $17 million in potential flood damage. Additionally, wetlands naturally filter pollution from stormwater runoff. The fast-moving water is slowed by vegetation, which allows suspended sediment and pollution to fall to the bottom.

October 16, 2018: Windham, Ohio issued a “do not drink advisory” for Village Water Plant residents. Manganese was detected at concentrations over the Health Advisory Level. We wanted to discuss what exactly manganese is, potential health effects, and how it enters drinking water.

What Is Manganese?

Manganese is an extremely abundant earth metal. It’s naturally present in the environment, but is also used in iron and steel manufacturing.

Is Manganese Good For You?

In low doses, yes! According to the FDA, it’s important for bone mineralization and metabolic regulation in children. It also helps with cartilage and bone formation. It’s naturally found in foods such as beans, nuts, pineapples, spinach, sweet potatoes and whole grains. You’ve also most likely seen manganese tablets in the supplement isle of the grocery store!

What Are The Negative Health Effects of Manganese In Drinking Water?

Manganese can cause adverse health effects when concentrations exceed the Lifetime Health Advisory Level of 0.3 parts per million. Reports have concluded that chronic ingestion of water containing manganese may lead to neurological effects in older adults and infants. Long term exposure can cause lethargy, muscular weakness. In Windham, EPA set a “do not drink” advisory for infants under 1 year old and nursing and pregnant women. This is in part do to the fact that infants are the most sensitive population to any type of contamination.

What Causes Manganese In Drinking Water?

Clogged water lines typically cause concentrations of manganese to increase, which is what happened earlier this month in Windham, Ohio. Clogs prevent chlorine from entering the distribution system. Chlorine is an oxidant, and is typically used to treat manganese in drinking water. Water utility providers typically use chlorine to treat biological contamination, but it’s also used to reduce the concentrations of iron and manganese in drinking water. Exposure of high concentrations of manganese is possible if treatments (such as chlorine) fail. Private wells are not regulated and therefore not required to meet federally mandated drinking water standards. If you use a private well for drinking water, it’s important to keep this in mind for all types of contamination.

Will Boiling My Water Remove Manganese?

No. Boiling your tap water will not remove manganese, or other metals from drinking water. Boil advisories are typically issued if biological contamination is thought to pose a threat to a drinking water supply. People should always take drinking water advisories seriously, and listen to recommendations from city officials.

Manganese in drinking water is not a huge cause for concern, but it's important to be aware of the potential adverse health effects. It's also important to listen to boil advisories and other information regarding drinking water in your community.

America’s Water Infrastructure Act (AWIA) of 2018 passed in the Senate on October 10th, 2018 in a 99-1 majority vote. The purpose of the bill is to update existing marine and freshwater infrastructure throughout the United States. Unfortunately, AWIA fails to address emerging contaminants that are currently impacting communities around the country. This article provides a brief overview of the bill, some of its major gaps, and what we think are priority drinking water issues.

What Does America’s Water Infrastructure Act of 2018 Include?

Flood Control Management:

Aside from the direct immediate threat from a storm surge, flooding can have serious impacts after the fact. An increased threat of biological contamination into a water supply, non-point source pollution, and damages to water distribution infrastructure are just some of the long term implications from flooding. AWIA plans to reauthorize and increase funding to reduce impacts from climate related events, as well as restoration projects. Projects impacted by this water legislation include dam restoration, funding for levee systems, and stormwater capture.

Reauthorization of the Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA):

Under WIFIA, states that are eligible can apply for Clean Water State Revolving Funds and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds. WIFIA also includes development and implementation activities, such as lead service line replacements. AWIA plans to reauthorize funding for these programs.

Reauthorization of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF):

Through the DWSRF, states can receive funding for various types of water-related projects. States are then required to prioritize projects that; address issues that pose a serious threat to human health, are necessary for a water system to reach compliance under the Safe Drinking Water Act, and assist high-risk water systems. AWIA plans to reauthorize funding for this program.

Our Take:

There’s no question that updating water infrastructure in the United States is completely necessary. However, the 2018 Water Infrastructure Act will not create meaningful changes to drinking water. A majority of the bill aims to reauthorize existing provisions, and make minor adjustments to certain acts. AWIA emphasizes the level at which policies address drinking water quality in this country: poorly. The bill reiterates the status quo, with zero attention to the new and emerging contaminants that are violently impacting communities around the country. Chromium 6, Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS), and Perchlorate are all industrial contaminants that were not touched upon in this bill. AWIA is also far too broad in scope. The provisions combined marine with freshwater infrastructure, without strictly focusing attention on drinking water.

Flint, Pittsburgh, Providence, and Portland are just some of the major U.S. cities dealing with high levels of lead in drinking water. Since Pittsburgh just began adding Orthophosphate to its distribution system, we decided to put together an article explaining what exactly this treatment technique is, and other popular municipal treatment techniques used for lead mitigation.

Why Is Lead Such A Big Problem And What Are We Doing To Fix It?

The 2014 drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan made municipalities around the country turn the mirror on their own problems with lead contamination. Lead remains a major issue for cities and towns throughout the entire country. It may feel like Americans have been talking about lead exposure for years, so why is it still such a big problem? The answer is pretty simple: Homes in the U.S. built before 1986 most likely contain lead pipes, plumbing, and solder. To make matters worse, water distribution lines also tend to adhere to this cutoff date. Lead is still a big part of infrastructure in the United States.

Since municipalities are tasked with mitigating lead exposure, we wanted to go over some popular treatment techniques that are being used throughout the United States, and their effectiveness at removing lead from drinking water.

Orthophosphate: Corrosion Inhibitor

Orthophosphate is a common system-wide corrosion inhibitor. It’s created by combining phosphoric acid with zinc phosphate and sodium phosphate. Together these chemicals create a mineral-like crust on the inside of lead service lines. If municipalities are willing to follow a strict dosing and monitoring schedule, orthophosphate can be extremely effective at reducing lead levels in drinking water.

Other larger cities around the country have also adopted Orthophosphate as a solution for lead-contaminated drinking water. In June of 2004, Washington, D.C. introduced orthophosphate to its distribution system, following major District-wide lead contamination.

According to EPA, the health effects of phosphates are not well known and FDA has stated that they’re “generally recognized as safe.” The Lead and Copper Rule requires the use of polyphosphate or orthophosphate whenever a municipality is in exceedance of lead standards set by EPA. Both have been cited as effective, but some municipalities disagree. According to city officials in Madison, Wisconsin, utility providers tried both of these additives and neither of them effectively reduced lead levels in drinking water. Because they were unable to find a corrosion inhibitor that worked, Madison officials decided to mandate the removal of all lead service lines.

It’s important to remember that orthophosphate isn’t a permanent fix, nor does it magically remove lead pipes. Orthophosphate has been cited by EPA as an “interim Optimal Corrosion Control Treatment (OCCT) modification.” It will also increase your water bill. In Washington, D.C., orthophosphate costs DC Water customers approximately $700,000 annually.

Problems With Partial Lead Service Line Replacements

Partial service line replacements are another mitigation tool used to reduce lead exposure. To put it candidly: it's extremely invasive. People are often surprised to learn that lead levels actually increase in the months following a partial service line replacement. Water that comes in contact with lead-laden debris or freshly uncovered piping can easily become contaminated. This type of disruption negates any sort of expensive treatment being used by a utility provider, like orthophosphate. If a municipality is in exceedance with the 15 part per billion Action Level, they are mandated (under the Lead and Copper Rule) to replace a certain percentage of lead service lines every year. If you’re curious municipal requirements under the Lead and Copper Rule, click here!

Who Pays For Lead Line Replacements?

Ratepayers are typically responsible for paying for public water line replacements. However, homeowners are responsible for covering the cost of replacing lead service lines that distribute water directly into their homes. According to EPA, a homeowner that elects to do so can expect to pay anywhere from $2,500 to $8,000 per line. This is not feasible for most households in the United States. Additionally, people are still at risk of lead exposure because lead pipes may still exist at various locations throughout a distribution system. Some municipalities offer subsidies or rebates on private lead service line replacements, but not all. In Madison, Wisconsin for example, homeowners who are eligible can apply for a rebate which covers up to $1,500 of the line replacement.

Can pH Reduce Lead In Drinking Water?

Many municipalities believe that adjusting the pH of drinking water is the best way to reduce lead exposure, and here’s why: Acidic water increase corrosivity, which causes lead pipes to leach into drinking water. The idea is that by making water more alkaline (opposite direction on the pH scale), the corrosivity will decrease. This may sound good in theory, but a municipality must still correct for chloride when doing so. According to the World Health Organization, chloride “increases the electrical conductivity of water and thus increases its corrosivity” and “increases the rate of pitting corrosion of metal pipes.” Similar to the other treatments mentioned in this article, changing the pH of drinking water does not get rid of lead service lines. Additionally, maintaining a balanced pH throughout an entire distribution system is not an easy task.

How Do You Know If Lead Treatment Works?

Lead is different from other contaminants because problems arise at the tap, rather than the source water. The only way to truly know if a corrosion control method is working is to test every single tap (which is completely unfeasible). Under the Lead and Copper Rule, most municipalities are only required to test 50-100 homes every 3 years or every monitoring period. This is not nearly enough data for a larger municipality like New York City. There’s just no way to know if a system-wide treatment technique is working to the best of its ability, so the burden and responsibility is on the consumer.

October 4, 2018- Elon Musk and The Musk Foundation confirmed a donation of $480,350 to Flint, Michigan Community Schools in hopes of addressing lead contamination in drinking water. Flint is one of many school districts across the country that has been working hard to generate long-term solutions for lead contamination in drinking water. This article examines whether the proposed filtration technology will effectively remove lead from drinking water.

How Will The Funding Be Used?

Musk initially announced the filters would comply with FDA’s 5 parts per billion standard (which is actually the standard for lead in bottled water), instead of EPA’s 15 part per billion Action Level. While definitely lower than EPA's threshold, the American Academy of Pediatrics and Center for Disease Control have both acknowledged that there is no safe level of lead for children. The Musk Foundation has not released the exact type of filtration Flint Community Schools plans to use. Press releases have indicated some type of ultraviolet filtration system.

What Is UV Water Filtration?

Ultraviolet filtration eliminates biological contamination from drinking water. This includes bacteria, viruses, and harmful microorganisms like E.coli. The idea behind UV filtration is it prevents microorganisms from reproducing, by striking each individual cell. It’s comparable to and often more effective than using chlorine to kill bacterial contamination.

Does UV Filtration Filter Lead?

No. While UV filters are great at removing biological contamination from drinking water, they have several limitations. UV filters by themselves are not able to remove chemical contaminants including Volatile Organic Compounds, chlorine, lead, mercury and other heavy metals. To remove chemical contaminants (including lead), a UV-based system would need to be paired with lead removal media or reverse osmosis.

Our Take

UV filters do not remove lead from drinking water, so unless the UV is part of a larger system that removes lead, lead-contaminated water should not be consumed by children. We will update this article as more information is made public!

One of the most frequently asked questions that our Water Nerds get asked is, “is my water safe?” Unfortunately, the answer to this isn’t all that cut and dry. We wanted to make a quick video explaining what “safe” really means.

What Does "Safe" Drinking Water Actually Mean?

“Safe” is a regulatory definition that means your drinking water is in compliance with standards set by the decades-old Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). There are only 90 contaminants regulated under this act, and thousands of others that are not. Unless mandated by the state, municipalities don't account for any unregulated contaminants. According to EPA, if the levels for each regulated pollutant meet EPA’s standard, then the drinking water is in compliance and therefore "safe". This doesn't include contaminants such as chromium 6, PFAS,

Can States Regulate Drinking Water?

States can create their own standards for regulated and unregulated contaminants, California being the best example. Most states typically don’t prioritize setting drinking water standards, or can’t afford to do so. Also, setting more stringent safe drinking water standards means that municipalities are responsible for complying with new allowable limits. This often means purchasing detection equipment as well as expensive filtration technology. More often than not, fitting these huge expenses into a local budget is impossible, and states take that into consideration when setting new standards.

Defining Legal Jargon

It’s important to understand the difference between enforceable and non-enforceable regulatory terms. Non-enforceable terms include; Lifetime Health Advisory Levels, Public Health Goals, Minimum Risk Levels, and Maximum Contaminant Level Goals. All of these are non-enforceable terms, and therefore municipal water treatment facilities do not need to comply with them. The only enforceable safe drinking water standards are Maximum Contaminant Levels and Action Levels.

Why are Enforceable and Non-Enforceable Standards Different?

Often, EPA is aware that their enforcement standards are set higher than what toxicologists consider to be safe. To address this, EPA creates Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) which refer to “the maximum level of a contaminant in drinking water at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health would occur..” Again, these are non-enforceable levels. In 2001, EPA set an enforceable Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 parts per billion for Arsenic in drinking water. That same year EPA adopted an MCLG of 0 parts per billion. This was EPA’s way of acknowledging that there really is no safe level of Arsenic in drinking water. EPA is unable to adopt a lower threshold because municipal water systems across the country would be out of compliance. EPA has to balance the cost imposed onto municipality, with the benefits associated with human health. This same principle goes for unregulated contaminants with health advisories. EPA set a lifetime health advisory of 70 parts per trillion for PFOA. Soon after, the Center for Disease Control recommended reducing the advisory level to 20 parts per trillion for the same contaminant. Finally, there are several health and regulatory agencies that understand that federal limits are set way over a safe threshold. At Hydroviv, we look at toxicological data instead of regulatory data when determining if your water is safe. We prefer to make recommendations about what doctors and pediatricians say is safe.

Overview:

That was a lot of information so here’s a recap! When municipalities label water as “safe,” they’re only referring to the handful of regulated contaminants. There’s a lot of regulatory jargon that might make it hard to understand the difference between the recommended monitoring level and the enforceable monitoring level. And finally, what regulations say and what toxicologists say is very different in terms of “safe” levels. At Hydroviv, we look at toxicological data instead of regulatory data. We prefer to make recommendations about what doctors and pediatricians say is safe.

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Biddeford and Saco's water quality problems, we collected water quality test data and information from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We also cross referenced city of Biddeford and Saco's water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Biddeford and Saco's drinking water.

Lead In Saco/Biddeford Drinking Water

Both Saco and Biddeford are older municipalities, so it's no surprise that both have problems with lead. 10% of sites tested for lead had concentrations over 4.8 parts per billion. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Disease Control, and American Academy of Pediatrics all recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. Additionally, Maine Water only sampled 30 household taps for the entire Saco/Biddeford area and 3 of these sites exceeded 15 parts per billion. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain.

Disinfection Byproducts In Saco/Biddeford Drinking Water

Next is Disinfection Byproducts or DBPs. DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants that are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria, react with organic matter. Biddeford and Saco both had elevated levels of disinfection byproducts. According to the most recent report, concentrations of haloacetic acids ranged from 16 to 37 parts per billion. Concentrations of trihalomethanes ranged from 21 to 61 parts per billion. For a bit of perspective, EPA’s maximum contaminant level for haloacetic acids is 60 parts per billion and 80 parts per billion for trihalomethanes. Health and regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems.

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Rochester, New York drinking water, we collected water quality test data from Rochester's annual Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Rochester drinking water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Rochester drinking water.

Lead In Rochester Drinking Water

Rochester is an older city, so it's no surprise that lead contamination in drinking water is of huge concern. 10% of sites tested for lead had concentrations over 9.7 parts per billion. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Disease Control, and American Academy of Pediatrics all recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. Additionally, the city of Rochester only sampled 58 household taps which is a very small percentage of homes in Rochester. This small representation isn’t a great indicator of the actual scope of the lead problem in Rochester. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain.

Industrial Runoff In Rochester Drinking Water

Several industrial heavy metals detected in Rochester’s 2017 drinking water report. Molybdenum, Strontium, and Vanadium were detected throughout most distribution systems, all of which are associated with metal or electronic processing. Chromium 6 was also detected at concentrations ranging from 0.07 to 0.09 parts per billion. For a bit of perspective, this is upwards of 4.5 times higher than level health experts say has a negligible impact on cancer risk.

Disinfection Byproducts In Rochester Drinking Water

The city of Rochester's water quality also has a problem with disinfection byproducts of DBPs. DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants that are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria, react with organic matter. In this years report, concentrations of trihalomethanes ranged from 12 to 81 parts per billion. For a bit of perspective, EPA’s maximum contaminant level for trihalomethanes is 80 parts per billion. So although the average is technically in compliance with EPA’s threshold, the levels of DBPs in Rochester are definitely high. Regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems.

]]>
https://www.hydroviv.com/blogs/water-smarts/boynton-beach-florida-drinking-water-quality2018-09-25T12:48:00-04:002018-10-10T14:47:37-04:00Problems We Found In Boynton Beach, Florida Drinking Water QualityAnalies Dyjak

Analies Dyjak | Policy Nerd

For Hydroviv’s assessment of the city of Boynton Beach, Florida's drinking water, we collected water quality test data from the annual Boynton Beach Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Boynton Beach water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Boynton Beach drinking water.

Disinfection Byproducts In Boynton Beach Drinking Water

Let’s start with Disinfection Byproducts or DBPs. DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants that are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria, react with organic matter. Boynton Beach water quality has some pretty high levels of disinfection byproducts. According to the most recent report, concentrations of haloacetic acids averaged 26 parts per billion but reached levels as high as 33.7 parts per billion and concentrations of trihalomethanes averaged 74.8 parts per billion but reached levels as high as 149 parts per billion. For a bit of perspective, EPA’s maximum contaminant level for haloacetic acids is 60 parts per billion and 80 parts per billion for trihalomethanes. Health and regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems.

Chloramine In Boynton Beach Drinking Water

While most cities use chlorine, Boynton Beach uses chlorine and chloramine in the disinfection process. Chloramine is primarily responsible for what many customers report as the “bad taste” or “pool smell” of tap water. Concentrations of chloramine averaged 3.01 parts per billion but reached concentrations as high as 4.8 parts per billion. Again for a bit of perspective, the maximum contaminant level for chloramine is 4 parts per billion.

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Lincoln, Nebraska’s drinking water, we collected water quality test data from Lincoln's annual Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Lincoln, NE water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Lincoln's drinking water.

How Does Agriculture Effect Drinking Water?

Pesticides, fertilizers and other types of non-point source pollution are common contaminants found in Lincoln drinking water. Because of its location in the midwest, Lincoln is extremely susceptible to contamination from surrounding agricultural runoff. Atrazine as well as nitrates were among the regulated fertilizers detected in Lincoln’s most recent water quality report. Contaminants associated with metal and petrolium refineries such as barium, antimony, and and arsenic were also detected. It's important to mention that Consumer Confidence Reports are only required to mention a handful of agricultural contaminants, and that there are several others used in large-scale agriculture.

Lead In Lincoln Drinking Water

Lincoln is an older city, so it’s no surprise that lead contamination is a big problem. Lead enters tap water through old lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. 10% of sites tested for lead in Lincoln had concentrations over 4.41 parts per billion. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Disease Control, and American Academy of Pediatrics all recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. Additionally, municipalities are only required to test a handful of homes every few years, so the levels reported in Lincoln’s annual water quality report might not reflect the lead levels in your tap water. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain.

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Jackson, Mississippi drinking water, we collected water quality test data from Jackson's annual Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Jackson water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Jackson drinking water.

Jackson Is In Exceedance Of The Federal Action Level For Lead

Jackson, Mississippi is in exceedance of the federal Action Level for lead in drinking water. So what does this mean? 10% of taps tested for lead contamination had concentrations over 16 parts per billion. The federal action level for lead is 15 parts per billion, but agencies such as the Center for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. Additionally, municipalities are only required to test a handful of homes every few years, so these super high levels reported in Jackson’s annual water quality report might not even reflect the lead levels coming from your faucet. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain. In August of 2018, the city of Jackson sent a notice to all residents acknowledging the lead violation. The notice gave standard recommendations for preventing lead exposure, such as allowing tap water to run for 2 minutes before use, avoiding hot water for drinking or cooking, eliminating tap water for baby formula, and getting your child’s lead levels checked by a doctor.

Disinfection Byproducts In Jackson Drinking Water

DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants that are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria, react with organic matter. Jackson, Mississippi has some of the highest concentrations of disinfection byproducts in the country. According to the most recent city of Jackson, MS water quality report, concentrations of haloacetic acids averaged 46.3 parts per billion but reached levels as high as 60 parts per billion. Concentrations of trihalomethanes averaged 78.6 parts per billion but reached levels as high as 85.2 parts per billion. For a bit of perspective, EPA’s maximum contaminant level for haloacetic acids is 60 parts per billion and 80 parts per billion for trihalomethanes. Health and regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems.

For Hydroviv’s city of Hartford, Connecticut's drinking water quality report, we collected water quality test data from Hartford's annual Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Hartford's drinking water.

Where Does Hartford Source Its Drinking Water?

Hartford sources its drinking water from surface water reservoirs throughout the massive Farmington River Watershed. Because Hartford’s source water is entirely surface, pollution that’s discharged into the river or its tributaries has the potential to enter drinking water. Hartford, as well as the rest of the state of Connecticut, has a long industrial history. Hartford drinking water has contaminants associated with industrial activities such as Strontium, Barium, Vanadium and Chromium 6. Additionally, hormones caused by household waste were detected in the city of Hartford's most recent drinking water quality report.

Lead In Hartford Drinking Water

Hartford is an older city, so it’s no surprise that lead contamination is a big problem. Lead enters tap water through old lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. 10% of sites tested for lead had concentrations over 4 parts per billion. But the highest level detected in Hartford drinking water was 148 parts per billion. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Disease Control, and American Academy of Pediatrics all recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. Additionally, municipalities are only required to test a handful of homes every few years, so the levels reported in Hartford’s annual water quality report might not reflect the lead levels in your tap water. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain.

Disinfection Byproducts In Hartford Drinking Water

Hartford also has a serious problem with disinfection byproducts or DBPs. DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants that are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria, react with organic matter. In this years report, concentrations of haloacetic acids ranged from 7.7 to 38.2 parts per billion and 15.3 to 72.8 parts per billion for trihalomethanes. For a bit of perspective, EPA’s maximum contaminant level for haloacetic acids is 60 parts per billion and 80 parts per billion for trihalomethanes. While Hartford's water quality is technically in compliance with EPA’s threshold, regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems.

Surface water is an extremely important natural resource. From the water we drink, give to our pets, and use for recreation, we are dependent on its various uses. Surface water is continuously being threatened by anthropogenic activities. It’s extremely difficult and costly for municipal treatment facilities to keep up with new contaminants that are polluting waterways every single day. Additionally, federal regulations don’t reflect the large scope of surface water pollution. This blog post discusses the various threats to surface water and why humans should care.

What Is Surface Water?

Lakes, oceans, streams, rivers, ponds, reservoirs, and wetlands are the various types of surface water. Freshwater sources are responsible for providing potable drinking water to 84% of the nations population. Surface water is different from groundwater because it has the ability to disperse and become diluted as it travels throughout a body of water. Groundwater aquifers are essentially holding tanks for highly concentrated contamination. There’s less room for contaminants to move around, and less volume for the contamination to become less concentrated.

How Does Surface Water Become Polluted?

Surface water is extremely susceptible to pollution because it occupies such a large portion of the earth’s surface. Surface water pollution is almost entirely the result of human activities. Agriculture, mining, factory effluent, landfills, human/animal waste and localized pollution are just some of the most common sources of surface water pollution. Topography and geological formations create natural surface water runoff, but human manipulation of the land increases flow rates and overall contamination.

Non-point source pollution is much harder to regulate because the source is not easily identifiable. Agricultural and stormwater runoff are the two most common types of nonpoint source pollution. Heavy rain events cause contaminants to runoff from roads and fields, collecting debris and pollution as it travels into a body of water.

How Do You Mitigate Surface Water Pollution?

It’s expensive and nearly impossible to mitigate a contaminant once it has entered surface water. For some contaminants, the solution is typically self-mitigating. A contaminant will become diluted to extremely small concentrations after it has traveled and dispersed throughout a body of water. Additionally, some contaminants are still extremely toxic at very small concentrations. There are also several persistent contaminants that never fully decompose in nature (PCBs, DDT and Dioxin), or take hundreds of years to degrade. As we’ve seen in Wilmington, North Carolina, and Maplewood, Minnesota, municipal water treatment facilities are only equipped to remove certain types and quantities of surface water contamination.

What Is Currently The Biggest Threat To Surface Water?

Man-made compounds are one of the largests threats to drinking water sources. Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a category of man-made “emerging contaminants,” which means they have been detected in the environment but the risk to human health is not well-understood. Chemicals such as GenX, PFOA, and PFOS are all common contaminants that fall under the category of PFAS. DuPont, Chemours, and 3M have been using variations of these chemicals in industrial and consumer products since the early 1950’s. Scotchgard, Teflon, firefighting foam, metal plating, heat/water repellent chemicals, and stain resistant fabrics are common uses of PFAS. They are extremely persistent in the environment, which means they do not readily degrade. PFAS effluent is either directly dumped from a factory into surface water or a dug ditch, which will then percolate into groundwater. This is allowed because PFAS are unregulated by the federal government.

North Carolina’s Cape Fear River has been unknowingly experiencing surface water contamination for years. A Chemours plant located in Fayetteville, North Carolina, had been discharging various types of PFAS into the Cape Fear River since the 1980's. The Cape Fear is the primary drinking water source for residents of Brunswick and New Hanover County. Their water resource is now tainted with a dangerous contaminant that's unregulated by the federal government.

Algal Blooms and Surface Water

Algal blooms are another major threat to surface water. An influx of nutrients or heat can increase the quantity of algae. Often, this overload of nutrients is the result of agricultural fertilizer runoff. Harmful Algal Blooms or HABs occur after an influx of nutrients or a sudden increase in water temperature. HABs can then produce cyanotoxins, which are harmful to humans and the environment.

How Can I Protect Surface Water?

Protecting surface water from contamination will not only improve drinking water quality, but also valuable habitats. Here are some tips for local level surface water management:

Watershed Management: Municipalities should look at watersheds as an entire system, rather than exclusively a water resource. Watershed management surveys the land surrounding a body of water to determine the natural flows and influxes.

Eliminating Pesticides, Herbicides, and Fertilizers: What’s bad for plants and animals, is also bad for humans. This category of surface water pollution runs-off directly into surrounding bodies of water and effects fragile surface water ecosystems. Reducing or eliminating the use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers will reduce the amount of necessary additives by municipal water treatment facilities to eliminate contaminants.

Reduce Impervious Surfaces: Impervious surface is any type of ground cover that prevents water from infiltrating into the ground. Pavement or asphalt is the best example. Impervious surface increases runoff flow rates into surface water, and prevents groundwater from naturally filtering contaminants. Next time you’re thinking about paving your driveway, consider a pervious alternative such as porous asphalt or pervious concrete.

Hold Municipalities Accountable: Stay current with commercial and industrial development within your community. Public comment periods are required prior to development and prior to obtaining a NPDES permit. Companies are required to address each question and concern individually, so if development plans raise personal concern, don’t be afraid to utilize the public comment period.

What Is 1,4 Dioxane?

1,4 dioxane is a synthetic industrial chemical, typically used as a stabilizer for chlorinated solvents. It was historically used in the production of 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), which was phased out in 1985 after scientists determined it to be an ozone-depleting substance. Today, 1,4 dioxane is not typically added directly to consumer products but can be an unintentional byproduct in certain plastics.

Is 1,4-Dioxane Regulated?

For drinking water, no. 1,4, dioxane is not federally regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act even though EPA has classified it as “likely to be carcinogenic to humans by all exposure routes.” There are health advisories in place but a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) does not exist. 1,4-dioxane is regulated by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) for indoor workplace air quality.

How Does 1,4 Dioxane Enter Drinking Water?

1,4-dioxane is typically found in areas close to production facilities that either make it or use it as a solvent. According to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, 1,4-dioxane can easily travel into groundwater because it does not stick to soil particles.

Health Effects of 1,4-Dioxane In Drinking Water:

1,4-dioxane is associated with an increased risk of nasal, liver, and gallbladder cancers. Like other contaminants, the dose and duration of exposure affect the likelihood of adverse health effects.

Regulatory History of 1,4-Dioxane:

1,4-dioxane is on the fourth drinking water Contaminant Candidate List and is also part of the Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. A Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) has not been set for 1,4 dioxane. This means that unless a state standard exists, utility providers are not required to remove it from drinking water. As of November 2017, 18 states set drinking water and groundwater guidelines for 1,4-dioxane.

As emerging contaminants like GenX, PFOA, and PFOS have been popping up in news headlines all over the country, there has been some confusion as to how these unregulated contaminants are addressed at the federal level. While it may seem like the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule is in place to protect people from any and all emerging contaminants, it is not a hard and fast rule designed to expedite regulation -- rather, it is a lengthy process that unfortunately has not resulted in many real-world changes. This article discusses aspects of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule that may surprise you, and explains how drinking water contaminants become regulated in the United States.

How Are Drinking Water Contaminants Regulated In The United States?

Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA typically follows a specific process when determining whether to regulate certain contaminants. Every 5 years, EPA publishes a list of 30 contaminants under the UCMR called the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL). Contaminants on this list are not regulated by National Primary Drinking Water Regulations, but are most likely present in public drinking water systems. These contaminants are placed on the list because they pose the greatest public health risk through ingestion of drinking water. EPA’s job is to whittle down the list of 30 to a handful of priority contaminants. Of that group of priority contaminants, EPA must make a regulatory determination for at least 5. EPA can choose to regulate all, some, or none of these contaminants.

What Is The Criteria For UCMR Regulatory Determination?

EPA must determine that the contaminant does/does not cause adverse health effects in humans.

EPA must determine if the contaminant will be present in public drinking water systems at an unsafe concentration.

EPA Administrator must determine if regulating the contaminant will reduce adverse health effects in humans.

Does A Contaminant Have To Be On The CCL To Become Regulated?

No. EPA is not limited to regulating contaminants that are on the current CCL. EPA can consider other contaminants if they present a serious public health concern in drinking water.

Does the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule Set Drinking Water Standards?

No. UCMR/CCL contaminants are not subject to regulation. As a part of the UCMR program, EPA establishes Minimum Reporting Levels (MRLs) for each contaminant. National Water Quality Laboratory defines MRLs as ”the smallest measured concentration of a substance that can be reliably measured by using a given analytical method.” MRLs are not to be confused with Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs), which are enforceable regulatory thresholds for drinking water contamination.

How Are Contaminants Added To The Contaminant Candidate List?

In order for a contaminant to be considered for the UCMR, it must be registered in the United States and have an analytical reference standard. The National Drinking Water Advisory Council and National Academy of Sciences are instrumental in determining which contaminants should be added to the list. After UCMR 2, EPA allowed for public participation in the CCL decision making process. Additionally, a contaminant can be added to multiple CCLs. For example, Perchlorate was on CCL 1, CCL 2, and CCL 3 before it was regulated.

Common Contaminants Considered Under The Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule

The Third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) was published in May of 2012, and it included two chemicals that you might be familiar with. Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS) and Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) were both on Contaminant Candidate List 3. Both of these contaminants fall under a broad category of contaminants called PFAS, which are found in heat resistant and non-stick products such as Scotchguard, Teflon, and fire fighting foam. Unfortunately, neither PFOS or PFOA made it to the Regulatory Determination Assessment Phase, and both were removed from regulatory consideration.

What Is The Contaminant Candidate List?

The Fourth Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 4) is the current batch of contaminants that’s under consideration for a regulatory determination. It was published in December of 2016, and includes nine cyanotoxins, two metals, nine pesticides, three disinfection byproducts, three alcohols, and three semivolatile organic chemicals.

Our Take:

While the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments provided regulatory due diligence, they also created an unbearably extensive review process. Industrial manufacturing companies are unrestricted when it comes to developing new products, and chemicals pushed to the market are essentially “safe” until proven otherwise. This sort of regulatory approach comes at a serious cost to human health. Chromium 6 is the best example of the flawed regulatory framework for drinking water. The 2000 blockbuster movie “Erin Brockovich” discussed the dangerous toxicity of Chromium 6 and it still isn’t regulated, nor does it appear on the most recent Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 4). The most important takeaway from the UCMR is that once a new CCL is published, the contaminants on the old list don’t just go away. Millions of Americans are forced to deal with adverse health effects because “scientific uncertainty” didn’t allow for regulation. This regulatory framework can't keep up with the thousands of new contaminants that are currently present in the environment.

People often purchase bottled water under the assumption that it’s much safer than what’s coming out of their tap. Marketing schemes lead consumers to believe that large corporations bottle and distribute only the purest water from crystal clear springs. The reality is that bottled water isn’t as safe as people are led to believe. This article discusses the regulatory, environmental, and ethical dilemmas associated with bottled water.

How Is Bottled Water Regulated In The United States?

The Food and Drug Administration regulates bottled water, and the Environmental Protection Agency regulates tap water. People are often surprised to find out that the drinking water standards for both of these agencies are nearly the same. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, certain chemicals must meet allowable limits that can enter drinking water. This list of allowable contaminants and their concentrations are identical for bottled and tap water, with the exception of lead. FDA regulates lead more stringently because companies shouldn’t ever have a reason to use lead infrastructure in the bottling process. But still, there is an allowable level of lead in bottled water of 5 parts per billion. EPA, CDC, American Academy of Pediatrics and other health organizations have all acknowledged that there is no safe level of lead for children. FDA must follow their own monitoring guidelines, which are often much more lax than EPA’s for municipal tap water.

Where Does Bottled Water Come From?

A lot of bottled water companies are deceptive as to where they actually source their water. Companies are legally allowed to draw water from artesian wells, mineral water, natural springs, drilled wells, and municipal tap water. That’s correct. Bottled water companies are allowed to use the same treated water as municipal water systems. Additionally, companies are not legally required to disclose where they source their water on the bottle itself. Municipal water systems are actually much more transparent because they’re required to disclose information about source water in annual consumer confidence reports. Depending on the brand, there’s of course a substantial cost associated with purchasing packaged water.

Environmental Effects of Plastic Water Bottles

“Trash Island” in the Northern Pacific Ocean is probably the best physical example of the environmental effects of plastic and plastic water bottles. 91% of plastic isn’t recycled, meaning a majority of virgin, single-use plastic ends up in landfills or the environment. According to a 2016 study by the Ellen Macarthur Foundation, the ocean will contain more plastic by weight than fish in the year 2050. The main ingredient in plastic bottles is polyethylene terephthalate (Pet) which takes 400 years to decompose in the environment. Once degraded, dangerous chemicals such as Bisphenol A (BPA), polyvinyl chloride and other phthalates can leach into the environment. Not to mention the important natural resources required to make plastic water bottles. Plastic is a product of petroleum, which is a non-renewable fossil fuel.

The Ethics of Bottled Water

There’s also an ethical environmental dilemma associated with extracting water from a drought prone area, then selling it across the country or even world. Nestle owns aquifers in California which has been experiencing a serious drought in recent years. Because Nestle is able to purchase expensive deep drills that municipalities can’t even afford, they’re able to continue extracting water business as usual. Additionally, native american tribes are significantly affected by bottled water companies. Tribes enter lease agreements with companies that are often times violated. Even if they don’t have a legal agreement the same issues arise with the definition of “reasonable use” under the riparian law.

]]>
https://www.hydroviv.com/blogs/water-smarts/military-bases-have-high-concentrations-of-per-and-polyfluoroalkyl-substances-pfas2018-08-24T16:14:00-04:002018-08-29T14:27:26-04:00Military Bases Have High Concentrations of Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)Analies Dyjak

***Updated 8/29/18 to include video***

Analies Dyjak | Policy Nerd

Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) have been receiving a ton of media attention throughout this past year. PFAS are a category of toxic contaminants that have invaded public and private drinking water systems across the entire country. Military bases are extremely susceptible to this type of contamination because of necessary on-base activities. If you would like to learn more about what PFAS are, their health effects, and if they're regulated, please click here.

Why Do Military Bases Have High Concentrations of Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)?

Military bases have historically had issues with pollution, due to the nature of on-base activities. Municipal fire departments also travel to nearby military bases because they provide an open, secure area to train. So not only are military personnel being directly exposed to PFAS, but so are local fire departments. The Department of Defence isn’t necessarily to blame for the high rates of contamination on military bases. The Manufacturers of PFAS-containing fire fighting foam who actively sell to the DOD are greatly at fault. Because there is no effective alternative on the market, the military has no choice but to continue purchasing and using these products. Unlike many other countries, the United States doesn’t use the precautionary principle in chemical manufacturing. This means that chemicals are introduced to the market before toxicological due diligence is completed. Most of the time it takes someone getting extremely sick for manufacturers to even begin to pay attention.

More often than not, military bases have their own underground private wells that provide drinking water to families living on base, rather than being apart of a public drinking water system. Fire fighting foam can either directly percolate into soil, or run off into surrounding surface water sources. Water from contaminated soil naturally recharges on-base drinking water wells, which families consume on a daily basis.

What Is The Department of Defense Doing About Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) on Military Bases?

The most recent data provided by the DOD stated that 99% people receiving non-DOD-treated water were served by systems with no violations, whereas only 89% of people receiving DOD-treated water were served by systems with no violations. It’s important to note that these data are from bases that voluntarily tested for PFAS, but they do however reiterate that military bases have higher concentrations of this contaminant than other areas in the country. In October of 2017, the US Government Accountability Office reported that the Department of Defense has taken action on PFAS. DOD has directly shut down wells or provided filtration to 11 military installations. This is definitely a step in the right direction, but there are over 400 military bases in the United States that are still contaminated. Approximately 3 million people in the US drink water provided by the DOD. Not only are active military personnel at risk, husbands, wives and children and are being adversely impacted by PFAS. Again, manufacturers of these dangerous chemicals are mostly to blame for such high concentrations of PFAS contamination in drinking water.

What Are Public Officials Doing About Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)?

EPA set a Lifetime Health Advisory Level of 70 parts per trillion for both PFOA and PFOS. The rule of thumb for PFAS is that the sum of the category of contaminants should be no higher than 70 parts per trillion. ATSDR believes this level should be reduced to 20 parts per trillion for drinking water. Again, Lifetime Health Advisory Levels and Minimum Risk Levels are non-enforceable limits that municipalities are not required to follow. DOD has not developed their own standard for PFAS in drinking water and therefore follow the non-enforceable national level of 70 parts per trillion. DOD is not at all incentivized to create a standard or even test for PFAS, because of the outrageous mitigation expenses.

Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) have been receiving a ton of media attention throughout this past year. PFAS are a category of toxic contaminants that have invaded public and private drinking water systems across the entire country. This article discusses what PFAS actually are, where they come from, their health effects, and if they are regulated by the federal government.

What Are Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)?

Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) are a category of “emerging contaminants,” which means they have been detected in the environment but the risk to human health is not well-understood. GenX, PFOA, and PFOS are all common contaminants that fall under the category of PFAS. Companies such as DuPont, Chemours, and 3M have been using variations of these chemicals in industrial and consumer products since the early 1950’s. Scotchgard, Teflon, firefighting foam, metal plating, heat/water repellent products, and stain resistant fabrics are associated with this category of contaminant. PFAS are extremely persistent in the environment, which means they do not readily degrade. Several states such as North Carolina, Michigan, New Hampshire, Minnesota and Vermont have been seriously affected by this dangerous category of contaminant.

Are Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Regulated?

No. The entire class of PFAS is currently unregulated. This means that municipalities and state agencies are not required to test for it.

What Are The Health Effects of Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)?

According to a study by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry(ATSDR), PFAS exposure is associated with various adverse health effects, including an increased risk of cancer, lowered fertility rates, increased cholesterol, and developmental issues in infants and young children. Laboratory tests on animals don’t provide a completely accurate depiction of health effects, but they do provide the closest benchmark to humans.

How Are Humans Exposed To Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)?

Consumption of fish and shellfish that may contain PFAS through bioaccumulation

Industrial exposure to workers who manufacture PFAS

What Are Public Officials Doing About Per and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)?

EPA set a Lifetime Health Advisory Level of 70 parts per trillion for both PFOA and PFOS. The rule of thumb for PFAS is that the sum of the category of contaminants should be no higher than 70 parts per trillion. ATSDR believes this level should be reduced to 20 parts per trillion for drinking water. Again, Lifetime Health Advisory Levels and Minimum Risk Levels are non-enforceable limits that municipalities are not required to follow.

If you have any questions about PFAS in your drinking water, feel free to drop us a line at hello@hydroviv.com. You can also visit hydroviv.com and use our live chat feature.

***Modified on August 23, 2018 to include more cities and add a video ***

With more schools in major cities testing positive for lead contamination (e.g.New York City, Cleveland, Chicago, Portland, Newark, San Francisco), we get lots of questions about what’s happening. The goal of this article is to shed some light on why lead contamination in schools is such an important thing.

Children Are Most Sensitive To Lead Poisoning

There is no level of lead that is known to be safe for children. Period.

Weekends & Summers Allow Water To Sit Stagnant For Extended Periods Of Time In Schools

As many now realize, lead accumulates in water when it leaches from lead-containing pipes, valves, and plumbing connections. The longer water sits stagnant in pipes, the more lead it can accumulate. Unlike in homes, where water is used on a daily basis and never sits stagnant for more than a few hours each night, water in schools goes completely unused for long periods of time each weekend, vacation, and summer. These frequent long periods where water is not used are detrimental for two reasons:

1. Lead has more time to accumulate as water sits stagnant in lead-containing pipes

2. The lack of flushing prevents corrosion measures from rebuilding the protective layer that prevents lead from leaching out in the first place.

Most Schools Do Not Test Water Properly For Lead Contamination

It sounds crazy, but most schools don’t test for lead contamination in water. When asked by a reporter about testing the school’s water for lead, an elementary school superintendent went on record to say that "We do not test because it has never been brought up as a concern, nor is it a requirement to do so."

The reality is, even if schools choose to test for lead contamination, it’s much more complicated than testing in a residential home. In a residential home, EPA sampling protocols require that water be unused for 6 hours, in order to simulate the night and work day periods where water commonly sits stagnant in pipes. However, this protocol does not mimic how water is used in schools, because in addition to the 12 hours each school night the water goes unused, it sits stagnant for roughly 60 hours each weekend, and much longer periods over school vacations and summer.

How Can Schools Reduce Lead Contamination In Drinking Water?

Realistically, it’s probably cost-prohibitive for schools to replace all lead-containing plumbing or buy and maintain effective point of use drinking water filters that remove lead. When school administrators approach us for solutions, we always advise them to take immediate steps to identify lead containing plumbing, test their water for lead, and to implement regular pipe flushing protocols.

We encourage everyone to call their city's school department to better understand if and how lead is being tested for in schools. Because testing in schools is very complicated, we encourage people to ask for specifics of the testing program and actual results, not blanket assurances that everything is ok. As always, we encourage all readers to take advantage of our “Help No Matter What” approach to technical support. Technical support will answer your questions through email (support@hydroviv.com), free of charge, even if you have no plans to purchase a Hydroviv water filter.

Since 1991, the Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) has aimed to regulate public drinking water systems by specifically targeting lead and copper contamination. It was created by Congress to protect human health, but there are several exemptions and loopholes that compromise its overall mission. Additionally, it’s still considered to be one of the most complicated environmental statues. This article discusses the major insufficiencies of the Lead and Copper Rule, as well as recommendations to protect your family from drinking water contamination.

How Does Lead Enter Tap Water?

Lead enters tap water through old lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. Water leaving a treatment plant may be in compliance with loose EPA standards, but could become contaminated once it enters older infrastructure. Houses built before 1986 were most likely built with lead pipes and lead plumbing.

What are the Health Effects of Lead Contamination in Drinking Water?

As recent as 2017 the Center for Disease Control (CDC) reiterated that there is no safe blood lead level (BLL) for children. Even though an action level of 15 parts per billion still exists, there is still no safe level for children. It is zero. The scientific community and most regulatory agencies have acknowledged this, and still municipalities follow an extremely high threshold of lead in drinking water. A dose of lead that would have little to no impact on adults can have a significant and lifelong impacts on an infant or child. They are the most sensitive population in the case of lead because it’s a neurotoxin and healthy brain development between the years of 0-5 is crucial. Learning disabilities, shorter stature, hearing impairment, and impairment of formation and function of blood cells are just some of the health effects in children. Pregnant Women are also sensitive to lead contamination in drinking water. Lead accumulates in bones where it’s stored with calcium. Lead is released from bones in the form of maternal calcium which is used to help develop the fetus. Lead can also enter the placenta and have serious developmental effects on the fetus.

What is the Lead and Copper Rule?

The Lead and Copper Rule (40 CFR Part 141 Subpart 1) is part of the National Primary Drinking Water Regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act. The rule governs 68,000 public water systems across the United States, and has created provisions to help reduce lead and copper throughout community water systems. While the goals of this statute are in good faith, there are several loopholes, exemptions, and regulatory flaws that don’t necessarily prioritize human health. The most obvious and deceptive flaw being the 90th percentile rule. Only the 90th percentile of users must meet the EPA threshold of 15 parts per billion ( 0.015mg/L ) for lead and 1.3mg/L 1.3 parts per billion (1.3mg/L) for copper. This means that 10% of users can be in exceedance of the threshold and still be in compliance with the law.

What are the Sampling Requirements Under the Lead and Copper Rule?

There are many other components of the Lead and Copper Rule that leave users confused about what’s in their water. The most profoundly disappointing part of the Lead and Copper Rule is the municipal sampling requirements. The sampling protocol requires municipalities to collect a set number of residential samples, rather than a percentage of households within a community. For example, if a public water system services 100,000 people, they are only required to collect 100 samples, rather than a percentage of the total population. Municipalities that have 10,000-100,000 residents are required to collect 60 samples and municipalities with 3,301-10,000 residents are only required to collect 40 samples. Houses built before 1986, (when the use of household lead pipes became illegal), were most likely built with lead infrastructure. Moral of the story, very few households are made aware of lead contamination. Additionally, a public water system servicing less than 50,000 people can be eligible for “reduced monitoring” which decreases the number of samples required to collect. Reduced monitoring means that municipalities are only required to collect residential tap water samples once every 3 years. Systems that service 3,300 or fewer people can receive a waiver from the state allowing them to test for lead and copper once every 9 years. 9 years is an extremely long time. Lead concentrations can change overnight, especially if source water or corrosion control measures change.

Who Regulates Lead In Drinking Water?

Municipalities must disclose information about their drinking water to State officials and residents in the form of annual Consumer Confidence Reports. In 2007, revisions were made to the statute that sought to improve transparency between local, state, and federal agencies. The 2007 revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule require municipalities to notify either state or federal agencies if they have plans to change their treatment methods/source water, or anything else that might in any way increase the corrosion potential of lead (sound familiar?). The head agency is then required to approve these changes before they are implemented. Through this revision, municipal water providers must also notify residents about changes that may affect lead levels. The 2015 lead crisis in Flint, Michigan often comes to mind when cooperative federalism matters are being discussed. It’s important to note that Flint occurred after this revision. Protocols were in place, and still regulatory agencies failed to communicate.

How Are Water Samples Collected and Tested For Lead?

The Lead and Copper Rule developed a sampling protocol for both pre-selected and voluntary households. Municipalities initially pre-select “Tier 1” sites, which are older homes that most likely contain lead lines. However, homeowners can deny testing or fail to submit a sample if they choose to do so. If an inadequate number of Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3 samples are collected, the municipality will then draw samples from “representative sites.” At these sites, local officials are in complete control of how samples are collected. The Lead and Copper Rule requires a 1 liter “first draw” sample, which is water that has been stagnant in plumbing for at least six hours. Samples should be taken from a tap that’s typically used for consumption of drinking water.

Invalidating Lead-Containing Water Samples

A state agency has the authority to invalidate sampling if; the laboratory establishes improper sample analysis cause erroneous results, the state determines that the sample was taken from a site that did not meet the site selection criteria, the sample was damaged in transit or if “there is substantial reason to believe that the sample was subject to tampering.” Essentially, state laboratories can omit samples for a whole breadth of reasons. Several municipalities have been caught cheating the system by discarding samples with high lead levels. Some municipalities instruct residents to “pre-flush” and allow their taps to run for five minutes the night before sampling. This helps to clear stagnant water which completely defeats the purpose because “pre-flushing” has been cited as an effective way to reduce lead levels in drinking water. Other municipalities have told residents to wait until their water “runs cold” before testing, which accomplishes the same thing as pre-flushing.

Are Municipalities Required to Replace Lead Service Lines?

If 10% of water samples exceed the 15 part per billion action level after corrosion control and source water treatment requirements have been met, a municipality must replace 7% of lead service lines per year. Line replacements stop whenever new samples meet the lead action level for two consecutive monitoring periods. Monitoring periods can be anywhere from 6 months, 1 year, 6 years, or even up to 9 years is smaller communities. Once samples exceeding the action level are detected, the system has 12 months after the end of the monitoring period, to submit documents to the state that lay out an action plan.

Our Take:

We need to find ways to incentivize voluntary lead testing for homeowners and also incentivize lead testing at the municipal level. Right now municipalities would rather be unaware of a lead problem within a community because they know the reality of how expensive mitigation is going to cost. Of course they want to keep their residents safe but sometimes municipalities legitimately don’t have the funding to do so. In a regulatory sense, the Lead and Copper Rule is a mess. There are so many exemptions and loopholes, and the regulated sampling techniques offer little to no accuracy to what’s in people’s tap water. On top of that, the regulatory process in this country can take decades. Here are some recommendations on how to reduce lead exposure from our Water Nerds:

Allow your faucet to run for 2 minutes prior to drinking tap water.

See if your city or town has a free lead testing program. Washington D.C., New York City, and several other cities have a free lead testing program. If you live in an area that doesn’t have free lead testing, you can pay to send your sample to get laboratory tested.

Purchase a filter that is optimized to remove lead from water.

Current Efforts to Update the Lead and Copper Rule

Current Administration: Delayed updates to the Lead and Copper Rule. EPA is proposing updates for 2020: National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Regulatory Revisions and the Final Rule. We don’t really know how the administration is going to tackle these loopholes or gaps within the statute. Michigan has a really great proposed rule to tackle lead in drinking water. But again, several sections of the bill won’t be implemented until 2024.

For Hydroviv’s 2018 water quality assessment of Seattle, Washington we collected water quality test data from the city’s Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Seattle’s water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Seattle’s drinking water.

Where Does Seattle Source Its Drinking Water?

Seattle is very fortunate to have watersheds protected by the city and U.S. Forest Service. Seattle’s drinking water comes from the Cascade Mountains down to the Cedar and Tolt Rivers where it’s extracted.

Disinfection Byproducts (DBPs) In Seattle’s Drinking Water

Disinfection Byproducts or DBPs are a category of emerging contaminants. DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants that are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria, react with organic matter. Seattle had elevated levels of two types of DBPs: Total Trihalomethanes and Haloacetic Acids. In treated water from the Cedar River, concentrations of trihalomethanes ranged from 20 to 46 parts per billion, and 23 to 42 parts per billion in Tolt River water. Concentrations of haloacetic acids ranged from 16 to 85 parts per billion in Cedar River water, and 26 to 49 in the Tolt River water. For a bit of perspective, the federal standard for trihalomethanes is 80 parts per billion and 60 parts per billion for haloacetic acids. Health and regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems.

Chromium 6 In Seattle’s Drinking Water

Chromium 6 is a highly toxic metal that is currently unregulated by the EPA. Chromium 6 pollution is associated with metal processing, tannery facilities, chromate production, stainless steel welding, and pigment production. According to the most recent report, levels of Chromium 6 reached as high as 0.116 parts per billion. For a bit of perspective, the California Water Boards reported that Chromium 6 concentrations should not exceed 0.02 parts per billion in drinking water. These concentrations are up to 5.8 times higher than the proposed “safe” threshold. EPA has acknowledged that Chromium 6 is a known human carcinogen through inhalation, but is still determining its cancer potential through ingestion of drinking water. Lung, nasal and sinus cancers are associated with Chromium 6 exposure. Ingestion of extremely high doses of chromium 6 compounds can cause acute respiratory disease, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological, hepatic, renal, and neurological distress which may result in death.

Lead In Seattle’s Drinking Water

Lead enters tap water through old lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. 10% of sites tested for lead in Seattle had concentrations over 3 parts per billion. EPA, CDC, and American Academy of Pediatrics all recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. Additionally, municipalities are only required to test a handful of homes every few years, so the levels reported in Seattle’s annual water quality report might not reflect the lead levels in your tap water. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain.

It’s important to note that only a handful of contaminants are required to be included in annual Consumer Confidence Reports, and that there are hundreds of potentially harmful unregulated contaminants that aren’t accounted for. If you’re interested in learning more about water filters that have been optimized for Seattle’s tap water quality, feel free to visit www.hydroviv.com to talk to a Water Nerd on our live chat feature or send us an email at hello@hydroviv.com.

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Louisville, Kentucky’s tap and drinking water problems, we collected water quality test data from Louisville and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Louisville water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Louisville’s drinking water.

Where Does Louisville Source Its Drinking Water?

Louisville sources its drinking water from the Ohio River. The utility provider, Louisville Water, treats and distributes drinking water to the metropolitan area as well as surrounding counties, including; Bullitt, Hardin, Nelson, Oldham, Shelby, and Spencer.

Lead In Louisville’s Drinking Water

In recent years, Louisville's tap water has had a major problem with lead contamination in drinking water. Lead enters tap water through old lead service pipes and lead-containing plumbing. 10% of sites that were tested for lead had concentrations over 4.7 parts per billion, and the highest level collected was 10.2 parts per billion. The City of Louisville only received data from 50 residential taps, so the small data set may not be representative of the actual scope of the lead problem. Environmental Protection Agency, Center for Disease Control and American Academy of Pediatrics all recognize that there is no safe level of lead for children. Additionally, once water hits lead plumbing and lead fixtures, these measurements will increase significantly. Houses built before 1986 were most likely built with these types of fixtures. Lead exposure can cause developmental issues, lowered IQ, and damages to the kidneys and brain.

Disinfection Byproducts In Louisville’s Drinking Water

Louisville’s water quality report also disclosed information regarding high levels of Disinfection Byproducts or DBPs. DBPs are formed when chlorine or chloramine-based disinfectants are routinely added to the water supply to kill bacteria. They are split into two categories: Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and Haloacetic Acids-5 (HAA5). Concentrations of HAA5 averaged 22.5 parts per billion and reached levels as high as 31.1 parts per billion. The EPA Maximum Contaminant Level for this compound is 60 parts per billion. Concentrations of TTHMs averaged 31 parts per billion, but reached levels as high as 38.8 parts per billion. EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level is 80 parts per billion for TTHMs. Disinfection Byproducts are a category of emerging contaminants which means they have been detected in drinking water but the risk to human health is unknown. Health and regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity potential. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of various types of cancers and problems with the central nervous system.

Chloramine In Louisville’s Drinking Water

Louisville disinfects its drinking water with chloramine, which is a disinfectant similar to chlorine. Chloramine is primarily responsible for what many Louisville customers report as the “bad taste” or “pool smell” of tap water. In this years Louisville water quality report, chloramine concentrations averaged 2.9 parts per million but were detected as high as 3.6 parts per million, which is just under the EPA Maximum Contaminant Level of 4 parts per million. Most one-size-fits-all water filters use filtration media that doesn’t do a great job removing chloramine, but the filters that we design and build at Hydroviv for Louisville use a special filtration media that is purposefully designed to remove chloramine.

It’s important to note that only a handful of contaminants are required to be included in annual Consumer Confidence Reports, and that there are hundreds of potentially harmful unregulated contaminants that aren’t accounted for. If you’re interested in learning more about water filters that have been optimized for Louisville’s tap water quality, feel free to visit www.hydroviv.com to talk to a Water Nerd on our live chat feature or send us an email at hello@hydroviv.com.

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Omaha, Nebraska's drinking water, we collected water quality test data from the city’s Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Omaha's water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Omaha's drinking water.

Where Does Omaha Source Its Drinking Water?

Omaha draws its tap and drinking water from the Missouri River, Platte River, and the Dakota Sandstone aquifer.

Lead in Omaha’s Drinking Water

Based on the 2017 water quality report, lead levels in Omaha ranged from less than 0.5 to 14.9 parts per billion. 10% of taps had levels over 6.4 parts per billion, which is in compliance with the loose EPA standard of 15 parts per billion. However, if you were to ask toxicologists, pediatricians, or the CDC they would all tell you that there is no safe minimum level of lead. Lead is a neurotoxin that can have serious developmental effects on children.

Arsenic in Omaha’s Drinking Water

Arsenic is a heavy metal that typically leaches into groundwater as surrounding bedrock naturally weathers overtime. According to the most recent data, Arsenic concentrations ranged from 2 to 5.07 parts per billion in Omaha's tap and drinking water. EPA set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 10 parts per billion for Arsenic, but several health and regulatory agencies believe this level should be reduced to 1 or even 0 parts per billion. Arsenic is a toxic substance that is linked to a long list of health problems in humans. For example, arsenic can cause a number of different cancers (e.g. skin, bladder, lung, liver, prostate), as well as create non-cancerous problems with cardiovascular (heart/blood vessels), pulmonary (lungs), immune, neurological (brain), and endocrine (e.g. diabetes) systems. Hydroviv recommends purchasing a filter that is optimized to remove Arsenic from your drinking water, especially if you’re serviced by a private well.

Disinfection By-Products in Omaha’s Drinking Water

When water treatment facilities sanitize the water with chemicals such as chlorine, different contaminants can be created. These types of contaminants are called Disinfectant by products or DBPs. They are split into two categories: Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and Haloacetic Acids-5 (HAA5). Concentrations of TTHMs averaged 43 parts per billion but were detected as high as 86.3 parts per billion. HAA5 concentrations averaged 19.3 parts per billion but were detected as high as 40.4 parts per billion. For a bit of perspective, EPA set a Maximum Contamination Level of 80 parts per billion for TTHMs and 60 parts per billion for HAA5.

Chromium 6 In Omaha’s Drinking Water

Chromium 6 is an unregulated toxic metal that's associated with metal processing, tannery facilities, chromate production, stainless steel welding, and pigment production. Concentrations of Chromium 6 were found to be ranging from 0.13 parts per billion to 1.4 parts per billion. These levels are nearly 70 times higher than the concentration determined to have a negligible impact on cancer risk. EPA has acknowledged that Chromium 6 is a known human carcinogen through inhalation, but is still determining its cancer potential through ingestion of drinking water. Lung, nasal and sinus cancers are associated with Chromium 6 exposure. Ingestion of extremely high doses of chromium 6 compounds can cause acute respiratory disease, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological, hepatic, renal, and neurological distress which may result in death.

Synthetic Organic Contaminants in Omaha's Drinking Water

Di(2-ethylhexyl)phthalate was also detected in Omaha's drinking water. This chemical is known for its ability to make plastic flexible. A toxicology report has shown that this chemical is known to cause reproductive problems in young males, stomach pains, and is labeled as a probable carcinogen. EPA set a Maximum Contaminant Level of 6 parts per billion for this contaminant. The Omaha water quality problem report detected concentrations of these chemicals ranging from less than 2 parts per billion to 3.11 parts per billion.

]]>
https://www.hydroviv.com/blogs/water-smarts/problems-we-found-with-columbus-ohio-drinking-water2018-08-01T15:00:00-04:002018-08-10T10:27:34-04:00Problems We Found With Columbus, Ohio's Drinking WaterAnalies Dyjak

Ernesto Esquivel | Water Nerd

For Hydroviv’s assessment of Columbus drinking water, we collected water quality test data from the city’s Consumer Confidence Report and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. We cross referenced Columbus water quality data with toxicity studies in scientific and medical literature. The water filters that we sell at Hydroviv are optimized to filter out contaminants that are found in Columbus drinking water.

Where Does Columbus Source Its Drinking Water?

Columbus sources its drinking water from the Scioto River, Big Walnut Creek, and groundwater from the Scioto River Valley. The city is serviced by three water treatment plants that each take care of a certain area of the city. The three plants are the Dublin Road treatment plant (DRWP), the Hap Cremean Water Plant (HCWP), and the Parsons Avenue Water Plant (PAWP).

Chromium 6 In Columbus Drinking Water

Chromium 6 is a highly toxic metal that is currently unregulated by the EPA. In recent years, Columbus city water has had a problem with this dangerous contaminant. Chromium 6 pollution is associated with metal processing, tannery facilities, chromate production, stainless steel welding, and pigment production. In this years water quality report, concentrations of Chromium 6 were detected as high as 0.35 parts per billion in certain groundwater sources. These levels are 17 times higher than the concentration determined to have a negligible impact on cancer risk. EPA has acknowledged that Chromium 6 is a known human carcinogen through inhalation, but is still determining its cancer potential through ingestion of drinking water. Lung, nasal and sinus cancers are associated with Chromium 6 exposure. Ingestion of extremely high doses of chromium 6 compounds can cause acute respiratory disease, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal, hematological, hepatic, renal, and neurological distress which may result in death.

Disinfection Byproducts In Columbus Drinking Water

Columbus city water problems also includes high concentrations of disinfection byproducts or DBPs. DBPs are formed when chlorine-based disinfectants react with organic matter. They are split into two categories: Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) and Haloacetic Acids-5 (HAA5). Concentrations of HAA5 averaged 29.4 parts per billion at DRWP, 45.3 parts per billion at HCWP, and 8.4 parts per billion at PAWP. Concentrations of TTHMs averaged 40.2 parts per billion at DRWP, 53 parts per billion at HCWP, and 34.1 parts per billion in PAWP. For a bit of perspective, EPA’s Maximum Contaminant Level for HAA5 is 60 parts per billion and 80 parts per billion for TTHMs. Disinfection Byproducts are a category of emerging contaminants which means they have been detected in drinking water but the risk to human health is unknown. Regulatory agencies have very little knowledge about the adverse health effects of DBPs, and their toxicity. EPA has stated that they have been linked to an increased risk of bladder cancer, as well as kidney, liver, and central nervous system problems.

It’s important to note that only a handful of contaminants are required to be included in annual Consumer Confidence Reports, and that there are hundreds of potentially harmful unregulated contaminants that aren’t accounted for. If you’re interested in learning more about water filters that have been optimized for Columbus tap water quality, feel free to visit www.hydroviv.com to talk to a Water Nerd on our live chat feature or send us an email at hello@hydroviv.com.